Ukrainian Lawyers Exposed Myrotvorets to Kiev Regime in 2018

Sept. 10, 2022 (EIRNS)—“Uspishna Varta” (“Successful Guards”), an all-Ukrainian human rights platform created on the initiative of philanthropist Aleksandr Klymenko, based on detailed interviews with victims and witnesses of human rights violations, published a 22-page report on Sept. 11, 2018, calling on Ukraine’s President and the Verkhovna Rada to urgently take measures to defend all Ukrainian citizens from violations of their freedom of speech. The platform “brings together lawyers, public figures, and volunteers in order to protect the political and civil rights and freedoms of Ukrainian citizens.”

At the end of the report, it exposes the creators and criminal dealings of Myrotvorets, the platform that posted thousands of names and personal data of individuals considered “traitors” and “info-terrorists.” Several of those listed have been murdered, both inside and outside of Ukraine, most recently Russian journalist Darya Dugina, whose car was exploded in Moscow, on Aug. 20. Her father, Alexander Dugin was driving behind her.

The report confirms the website was created in 2014 by MP Anton Gerashchenko, an advisor to then-Interior Minister Arsen Avakov, who identifies the founder as one Georgiy Tuka, the creator of a “community group” called “Narodny Tyl” (National Homefront) which operates the Myrotvorets website. The Uspishna Varta reports identifies Tuka has having been in 2015-2016 head of the Lugansk regional military-civil administration, and since 2016 the “Deputy Minister for temporarily occupied territories and internally displaced persons of Ukraine,” meaning Crimea.

According to an exposé on April 17, 2015 by Ukrainian news site “Vesti,” they questioned Tuka about the assassinations of former Ukrainian MP Oleg Kalashnikov (d. April 15) and opposition journalist Oles Buzina (d. April 16) both listed by Myrotvorets. Tuka replied: “I don’t care where they were killed,” Tuka snapped. If these suspected separatists and terrorists are upset about being named on the site, “let them go to court. “And if I could, I would provide the addresses of Boyko, Bondarenko, Khomutynnik and other scum, if I knew.” (Former MP Yelena Bondarenko had denounced Myrotvorets as “a tool for murderers.”) Whether Tuka and the website would be legally considered an accomplices in the murders, Tuka shrugged it off: “This site has collected data on more than 25,000 people. More than 300 of them are either arrested or destroyed. So why should I care about two scumbags who are to blame for the war?”

After confirming the evil protection offered by the state agencies, Uspishna Varta interestingly reports that “according to the open register of public organizations of the Ministry of Justice,” Myrotvorets, “isn’t officially registered as a public organization” and “has several IP addresses located outside Ukraine.” Therefore, “it is almost impossible to ban and close the website Myrotvorets, as well as to exclude a person from the list of this website via a ruling of the national courts.”

The report goes on: “In addition to this, it is common practice when Ukrainian citizens are found guilty without trial only because of the fact that they were included in the list of the website Myrotvorets.”

“All of this, in the (Ukrainian) government’s opinion, does not affect the protection of personal data expressed in the relevant law. Thus, the state maintains this illegal practice by its silence.” Moreover, information on Myrotvorets “is recognized by the courts of Ukraine when making decisions. Having studied judicial practice, the lawyers of Uspishna Varta came to the conclusion that the data of the ‘Myrotvorets’ website is being used in court decisions at all stages—from the beginning of the pre-trial investigation to the conviction of the person.”

Being named on Myrotvorets, Uspishna Varta writes, “is recognized by the Ukrainian courts as a sufficient basis for:

• “Violating a person’s banking confidentiality, extracting information from communication channels (phone numbers);

• “Detention and election for a suspect of a preventive measure in the form of detention;

• “Extending the period of detention of the accused for the reason that in their case, in the opinion of the prosecution, the appointment of the deprivation of liberty is expected;